Selecciones

DanS. added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/11/2010 in writing

la cupa del mundo - perdón
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-11 22:22:56 UTC

Post by DanS.
DanS. added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/11/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
So, I was finally ready to plonk down the $13 or $14 for Selecciones
for a subscription and it seems they discontinued their US edition.
I'm disappointed.
And, ¡Felicitaciones a España por el triunfo en el Cupo Mundial!

la cupa del mundo - perdón

La cOpa, DanS.

PS: Gracias.

Django Cat

2010-07-11 22:29:09 UTC

Post by DanS.
DanS. added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/11/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
So, I was finally ready to plonk down the $13 or $14 for
Selecciones for a subscription and it seems they discontinued
their US edition. I'm disappointed.
And, ¡Felicitaciones a España por el triunfo en el Cupo Mundial!

la cupa del mundo - perdón

Can any of the AUE German speakers explain why Germans call the
competition 'Weltmeisterschaft' rather than a translation of 'World
Cup' or even something like 'World Trophy'?

DC
--

Bob G

2010-07-14 14:15:11 UTC

Post by DanS.
la cupa del mundo - perdón

copa

Arcadian Rises

2010-07-11 23:43:42 UTC

On Jul 11, 5:25 pm, DanS.

Post by DanS.
And, ¡Felicitaciones a España por el triunfo en el Cupo Mundial!

Ole!

Viva Espana!!!!!!

R H Draney

2010-07-12 00:51:46 UTC

On Jul 11, 5:25=A0pm, DanS.

And, =A1Felicitaciones a Espa=F1a por el triunfo en el Cupo Mundial!

Ole!
Viva Espana!!!!!!

¡Y viva la Cuchara Roja Grande!...ere

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

tony cooper

2010-07-12 01:15:18 UTC

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:25:34 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

The trick here seems to be following your math. If there are 20
colonists, including two couples, the *other* number is 16 the way I
count.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

DanS.

2010-07-12 03:34:50 UTC

tony cooper added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/11/2010 in writing

Post by tony cooper
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:25:34 -0400, DanS.

The trick here seems to be following your math. If there are 20
colonists, including two couples, the *other* number is 16 the way I
count.

You're missing the point though. Even the homosexual couple must admit
to a fommal recoginition of the heterosexual couples need for formal
recognition. The math is is thusly: a.) rocognize the family or b.)
don't. Thence, the math relieves 18. You're just sightly off.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Don Phillipson

2010-07-12 11:36:24 UTC

Too much is omitted here, viz. what obliges the community to
recognize any social or sexual arrangement, and what recognition
entails. This ought to be straightforward in actual colonies which usually
seek to replicate one source society in another different place,
thus replicate the social or legal systems of the parent society.

The OP factually observes that most societies police members'
social and sexual behavior, but we know there are some societies
that do not, and policy in this regard usually alters in time. Whether
a trick or not, the question cannot be answered until the OP
provides the rules of the game in this respect.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Peter Moylan

2010-07-12 14:26:39 UTC

Too much is omitted here, viz. what obliges the community to
recognize any social or sexual arrangement, and what recognition
entails. This ought to be straightforward in actual colonies which usually
seek to replicate one source society in another different place,
thus replicate the social or legal systems of the parent society.
The OP factually observes that most societies police members'
social and sexual behavior, but we know there are some societies
that do not, and policy in this regard usually alters in time. Whether
a trick or not, the question cannot be answered until the OP
provides the rules of the game in this respect.

There is a certain political faction whose modus operandi is to avoid
specifying the rules of the game. Thus, they will always win, because
they can refute any opposing argument by changing the rules.

That, I suppose, is why DanS said "Trick question". He knows that at
least some people will answer the question without the use of logic.

(But I assume that his "18" is a simple typo. I can't think of any
system of logic where 20 minus two couples gives an final answer of 18.)

If anyone cares, here's my answer. In some scenarios, the other 16 will
recognise gay marriage. In others, they won't. There is not "obligated"
about it. The majority answer will be governed by irrational
considerations, not by reasoned argument.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

CDB

2010-07-12 19:54:48 UTC

Too much is omitted here, viz. what obliges the community to
recognize any social or sexual arrangement, and what recognition
entails. This ought to be straightforward in actual colonies
which usually seek to replicate one source society in another
different place,
thus replicate the social or legal systems of the parent society.
The OP factually observes that most societies police members'
social and sexual behavior, but we know there are some societies
that do not, and policy in this regard usually alters in time.
Whether
a trick or not, the question cannot be answered until the OP
provides the rules of the game in this respect.

There is a certain political faction whose modus operandi is to
avoid specifying the rules of the game. Thus, they will always win,
because they can refute any opposing argument by changing the rules.
That, I suppose, is why DanS said "Trick question". He knows that at
least some people will answer the question without the use of logic.
(But I assume that his "18" is a simple typo. I can't think of any
system of logic where 20 minus two couples gives an final answer of 18.)
If anyone cares, here's my answer. In some scenarios, the other 16
will recognise gay marriage. In others, they won't. There is not
"obligated" about it. The majority answer will be governed by
irrational considerations, not by reasoned argument.

The arithmetic is one thing I'm willing to give Rev Dan a by on. The
other 18 are the ones who are not the same-sex couple; their number
includes the male-female couple. There is a female couple across the
street from me. They are married, I believe, and are raising a couple
of adopted children, as successfully as most couples do.

DanS.

2010-07-12 20:07:22 UTC

CDB added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

Too much is omitted here, viz. what obliges the community to
recognize any social or sexual arrangement, and what recognition
entails. This ought to be straightforward in actual colonies
which usually seek to replicate one source society in another
different place,
thus replicate the social or legal systems of the parent society.
The OP factually observes that most societies police members'
social and sexual behavior, but we know there are some societies
that do not, and policy in this regard usually alters in time.
Whether
a trick or not, the question cannot be answered until the OP
provides the rules of the game in this respect.

There is a certain political faction whose modus operandi is to
avoid specifying the rules of the game. Thus, they will always win,
because they can refute any opposing argument by changing the rules.
That, I suppose, is why DanS said "Trick question". He knows that at
least some people will answer the question without the use of logic.
(But I assume that his "18" is a simple typo. I can't think of any
system of logic where 20 minus two couples gives an final answer of 18.)
If anyone cares, here's my answer. In some scenarios, the other 16
will recognise gay marriage. In others, they won't. There is not
"obligated" about it. The majority answer will be governed by
irrational considerations, not by reasoned argument.

The arithmetic is one thing I'm willing to give Rev Dan a by on. The other
18 are the ones who are not the same-sex couple; their number includes the
male-female couple. There is a female couple across the street from me.
They are married, I believe, and are raising a couple of adopted children, as
successfully as most couples do.

As to your "Rev" Dan comment, there wasn't one mention of Biblical
principles in there. That's a system of argument based on spiritual
things that many will disregard out of hand. no matter how strongly
held the belief is by the one basing his argument on it.

There is no need to recognize the gay couple, simply because they can't
reproduce. However, the gay couple needs to recognize the hetero
couple to ensure the continuity of the colony into the future. That's
how I get 18.

I'm not saying there aren't a number of screwed up circumatances where
gay couples may have a member who has had children. I'm not saying
there aren't circumstances where they may cohabitate. I'm saying we
don't, as a society need to marry them. It was their choice to lead
their lives contrary to societal norms, and they should expect there
will be consequences to this choice and lambaste society for their own
irresponsibility.

Please, everyone who argues this tries to throw the orphans in, the tax
breaks and all the other man-made issues. The fact is, they are
man-made. Marriage is what it is, and it isn't a man-made phenomenon.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

CDB

2010-07-12 20:14:43 UTC

Post by DanS.
CDB added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

Post by CDB

Too much is omitted here, viz. what obliges the community to
recognize any social or sexual arrangement, and what recognition
entails. This ought to be straightforward in actual colonies
which usually seek to replicate one source society in another
different place,
thus replicate the social or legal systems of the parent society.
The OP factually observes that most societies police members'
social and sexual behavior, but we know there are some societies
that do not, and policy in this regard usually alters in time.
Whether
a trick or not, the question cannot be answered until the OP
provides the rules of the game in this respect.

There is a certain political faction whose modus operandi is to
avoid specifying the rules of the game. Thus, they will always
win, because they can refute any opposing argument by changing
the rules. That, I suppose, is why DanS said "Trick question". He
knows that
at least some people will answer the question without the use of
logic. (But I assume that his "18" is a simple typo. I can't think
of any
system of logic where 20 minus two couples gives an final answer of 18.)
If anyone cares, here's my answer. In some scenarios, the other 16
will recognise gay marriage. In others, they won't. There is not
"obligated" about it. The majority answer will be governed by
irrational considerations, not by reasoned argument.

The arithmetic is one thing I'm willing to give Rev Dan a by on.
The other 18 are the ones who are not the same-sex couple; their
number includes the male-female couple. There is a female couple
across the street from me. They are married, I believe, and are
raising a couple of adopted children, as successfully as most
couples do.

Instituted of God then, was it, Rev?

DanS.

2010-07-12 20:44:16 UTC

CDB added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

Post by CDB

Post by DanS.
CDB added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

Too much is omitted here, viz. what obliges the community to
recognize any social or sexual arrangement, and what recognition
entails. This ought to be straightforward in actual colonies
which usually seek to replicate one source society in another
different place,
thus replicate the social or legal systems of the parent society.
The OP factually observes that most societies police members'
social and sexual behavior, but we know there are some societies
that do not, and policy in this regard usually alters in time.
Whether
a trick or not, the question cannot be answered until the OP
provides the rules of the game in this respect.

There is a certain political faction whose modus operandi is to
avoid specifying the rules of the game. Thus, they will always
win, because they can refute any opposing argument by changing
the rules. That, I suppose, is why DanS said "Trick question". He knows
that
at least some people will answer the question without the use of
logic. (But I assume that his "18" is a simple typo. I can't think of any
system of logic where 20 minus two couples gives an final answer of 18.)
If anyone cares, here's my answer. In some scenarios, the other 16
will recognise gay marriage. In others, they won't. There is not
"obligated" about it. The majority answer will be governed by
irrational considerations, not by reasoned argument.

The arithmetic is one thing I'm willing to give Rev Dan a by on. The other
18 are the ones who are not the same-sex couple; their
number includes the male-female couple. There is a female couple
across the street from me. They are married, I believe, and are
raising a couple of adopted children, as successfully as most
couples do.

Instituted of God then, was it, Rev?

Yes, I believe so, but it doesn't matter what you believe for the point
to be valid.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

Skitt

2010-07-12 20:18:42 UTC

Post by DanS.
Please, everyone who argues this tries to throw the orphans in, the tax
breaks and all the other man-made issues. The fact is, they are
man-made. Marriage is what it is, and it isn't a man-made phenomenon.

Of course it is. What else?

--
Skitt
There's nothing wrong with religion
until one starts taking it seriously.

the Omrud

2010-07-12 21:51:41 UTC

Post by DanS.
There is no need to recognize the gay couple, simply because they can't
reproduce. However, the gay couple needs to recognize the hetero couple
to ensure the continuity of the colony into the future.

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

-
David

DanS.

2010-07-12 22:04:09 UTC

the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection between a
couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.
-
David

Just think of the implications. What happens if they don't recognize
it formally? The children are in peril, or the rest of the group is
left holding the bag, etc. The implications are numerous and obvious.
Not to be insulting, but I don't see how it isn't obviously requisite.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

the Omrud

2010-07-13 07:35:57 UTC

Post by DanS.
the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

Just think of the implications. What happens if they don't recognize it
formally? The children are in peril,

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
or the rest of the group is left holding the bag, etc.

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
The implications are numerous and obvious. Not to
be insulting, but I don't see how it isn't obviously requisite.

You are laying your own cultural assumptions on top of the simple
situation - humans can reproduce perfectly successfully without benefit
of marriage. In fact, in some countries this is the most common
position. This doesn't lead the rest of us to use their children as
slaves, or encourage them to play with razor blades.

--
David

DanS.

2010-07-13 15:16:26 UTC

the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

Just think of the implications. What happens if they don't recognize it
formally? The children are in peril,

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
or the rest of the group is left holding the bag, etc.

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
The implications are numerous and obvious. Not to
be insulting, but I don't see how it isn't obviously requisite.

You are laying your own cultural assumptions on top of the simple situation -
humans can reproduce perfectly successfully without benefit of marriage. In
fact, in some countries this is the most common position. This doesn't lead
the rest of us to use their children as slaves, or encourage them to play
with razor blades.

Now you're just being obtuse. They simply become a family. You're
envisioning a marriage ceremony with a preacher and a bride in white
and a groom. I'm talking about the bare bones definition of marriage,
where a man and a woman and a baby make a family.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

the Omrud

2010-07-13 15:34:08 UTC

Post by DanS.
the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

Just think of the implications. What happens if they don't recognize it
formally? The children are in peril,

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
or the rest of the group is left holding the bag, etc.

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
The implications are numerous and obvious. Not to
be insulting, but I don't see how it isn't obviously requisite.

You are laying your own cultural assumptions on top of the simple
situation - humans can reproduce perfectly successfully without
benefit of marriage. In fact, in some countries this is the most
common position. This doesn't lead the rest of us to use their
children as slaves, or encourage them to play with razor blades.

Now you're just being obtuse.

I thought you wanted not to be insulting.

Post by DanS.
They simply become a family. You're
envisioning a marriage ceremony with a preacher and a bride in white and
a groom.

Nope, I'm not.

Post by DanS.
I'm talking about the bare bones definition of marriage, where
a man and a woman and a baby make a family.

I understood that. Why can't they be a family if they aren't
"recognised"? What concrete difference does it make to them?

--
David

DanS.

2010-07-13 15:44:14 UTC

the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
the Omrud added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/12/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

Just think of the implications. What happens if they don't recognize it
formally? The children are in peril,

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
or the rest of the group is left holding the bag, etc.

Why does that follow from the "non-recognition"?

Post by DanS.
The implications are numerous and obvious. Not to
be insulting, but I don't see how it isn't obviously requisite.

You are laying your own cultural assumptions on top of the simple
situation - humans can reproduce perfectly successfully without
benefit of marriage. In fact, in some countries this is the most
common position. This doesn't lead the rest of us to use their
children as slaves, or encourage them to play with razor blades.

Now you're just being obtuse.

I thought you wanted not to be insulting.

Post by DanS.
They simply become a family. You're
envisioning a marriage ceremony with a preacher and a bride in white and
a groom.

Nope, I'm not.

Post by DanS.
I'm talking about the bare bones definition of marriage, where
a man and a woman and a baby make a family.

I understood that. Why can't they be a family if they aren't "recognised"?
What concrete difference does it make to them?

The difference is social not at all unique to the family. A modern day
example is if the father leaves the mother and children, he must still
pay for them - in the form of child support. All of the complications
that you can come up with don't change a thing. They're simply beside
the point.

And, I thought the "obtuse" comment followed logically from your
razorblades comment. :)
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

sproz

2010-07-13 09:48:22 UTC

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

And the argument against gay marriage could be equally applied to any
other childless union. Logically, if such "recognition" is indeed
necessary, it should apply to parenthood, and not to marriage at all.

Mark

DanS.

2010-07-13 15:18:57 UTC

sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

sproz

2010-07-13 15:50:55 UTC

On 13 July, 16:18, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.

No, but it negates your argument; your basic premise - that society's
recognition of marriage is based on the ability to reproduce - is not
true, since it is quite clear that there have always been marriages of
couples who don't or can't reproduce.

DanS.

2010-07-13 15:59:57 UTC

sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:18, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.

No, but it negates your argument; your basic premise

No, it doesn't.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

sproz

2010-07-13 22:49:05 UTC

On 13 July, 16:59, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:18, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.

No, but it negates your argument; your basic premise

No, it doesn't.

Well, that's great rhetoric...

OK, I'll ask a direct question. Suppose your original heterosexual
couple turned out to be unable to bear children. Would the other
couples still be "obligated" to recognise their marriage?

DanS.

2010-07-13 23:07:33 UTC

sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:59, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:18, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.

No, but it negates your argument; your basic premise

No, it doesn't.

Well, that's great rhetoric...
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Suppose your original heterosexual
couple turned out to be unable to bear children. Would the other
couples still be "obligated" to recognise their marriage?

No, as marriage is not a right but an obligation based on the
aforementioned criteria.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

sproz

2010-07-13 23:57:34 UTC

On 14 July, 00:07, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:59, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:18, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.

No, but it negates your argument; your basic premise

No, it doesn't.

Well, that's great rhetoric...
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Suppose your original heterosexual
couple turned out to be unable to bear children. Would the other
couples still be "obligated" to recognise their marriage?

No, as marriage is not a right but an obligation based on the
aforementioned criteria.

OK, so if we were to accept your definition of marriage then it would
be true that gay couples couldn't demand it as a right. But in most
real societies, reproductive ability is not a valid reason for
disallowing a marriage, so can't be a valid reason for disallowing gay
marriage.

sproz

2010-07-13 23:58:54 UTC

Post by sproz
On 14 July, 00:07, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:59, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:18, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.

No, but it negates your argument; your basic premise

No, it doesn't.

Well, that's great rhetoric...
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Suppose your original heterosexual
couple turned out to be unable to bear children. Would the other
couples still be "obligated" to recognise their marriage?

No, as marriage is not a right but an obligation based on the
aforementioned criteria.

It's getting late - I should have said "inability to reproduce is not
a valid reason...",

DanS.

2010-07-14 00:52:17 UTC

sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 14 July, 00:07, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:59, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by sproz
On 13 July, 16:18, DanS.

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
There is no need to recognize the gay couple, simply because they
can't reproduce. However, the gay couple needs to recognize the
hetero couple to ensure the continuity of the colony into the future.

OK, I can't watch this any more. Why? I cannot see any connection
between a couple being "recognised" and their ability to reproduce.

It could indeed. But, that doesn't negate the union that does as a
necessary social function.

No, but it negates your argument; your basic premise

No, it doesn't.

Well, that's great rhetoric...
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Suppose your original heterosexual
couple turned out to be unable to bear children. Would the other
couples still be "obligated" to recognise their marriage?

No, as marriage is not a right but an obligation based on the
aforementioned criteria.

You're trying to institute a normative measure. That is a utilitarian
approach. By that measure, a number of brutal and ill-concieved things
like war, the death penalty, and abortion become moral. I'm not ready
to accept that as valid.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

Glenn Knickerbocker

2010-07-15 20:00:15 UTC

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom

Post by sproz
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Suppose your original heterosexual
couple turned out to be unable to bear children. Would the other
couples still be "obligated" to recognise their marriage?

No, as marriage is not a right but an obligation based on the
aforementioned criteria.

So at what point would the marriage of, say, Zechariah and Elizabeth have
been invalidated? Or Abram and Sara?

And then of course there's the puzzle of Joseph and Mary.

¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/magictop.html
Who sneezed in my arpeggio? My beautiful arpeggio!

R H Draney

2010-07-15 20:33:36 UTC

Post by DanS.
sproz added the following to the totality of all human wisdom

No, as marriage is not a right but an obligation based on the
aforementioned criteria.

So at what point would the marriage of, say, Zechariah and Elizabeth have
been invalidated? Or Abram and Sara?
And then of course there's the puzzle of Joseph and Mary.

'sokay, they had at least five other kids later on (vide Mark 6:3)....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Glenn Knickerbocker

2010-07-13 16:40:08 UTC

Post by DanS.
There is no need to recognize the gay couple, simply because they can't
reproduce.

So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

Post by DanS.
However, the gay couple needs to recognize the hetero couple
to ensure the continuity of the colony into the future.

So, for instance, the Mosuo people of China no longer exist?

¬R

DanS.

2010-07-13 17:03:35 UTC

Glenn Knickerbocker added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/13/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
There is no need to recognize the gay couple, simply because they can't
reproduce.

So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

Post by DanS.
However, the gay couple needs to recognize the hetero couple
to ensure the continuity of the colony into the future.

So, for instance, the Mosuo people of China no longer exist?
¬R

None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.
You're a troll and I'm going to plonk file you now.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

Glenn Knickerbocker

2010-07-13 17:50:36 UTC

Post by DanS.
Glenn Knickerbocker added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/13/2010 in writing

Post by Glenn Knickerbocker
So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.

The women in your imaginary colony didn't imaginarily live beyond
menopause? How convenient.

¬R

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-14 11:37:54 UTC

Post by DanS.
Glenn Knickerbocker added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/13/2010 in writing

Post by Glenn Knickerbocker
So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.

The women in your imaginary colony didn't imaginarily live beyond
menopause? How convenient.
Â¬R

El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer menopausica
puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la caridad, etc.

PS: DanS, no te preocupes por el cinismo pueril de este bunch of losers. El
amor critiano se defiende solo y SIEMPRE GANA.

sproz

2010-07-14 12:48:04 UTC

Post by DanS.
Glenn Knickerbocker added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/13/2010 in writing

Post by Glenn Knickerbocker
So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.

The women in your imaginary colony didn't imaginarily live beyond
menopause? How convenient.
¬R

El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer menopausica
puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la caridad, etc.
PS: DanS, no te preocupes por el cinismo pueril de este bunch of losers.
El amor critiano se defiende solo y SIEMPRE GANA.

... siempre que tiene tu propio definición de "ganar"...

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-14 13:31:51 UTC

Post by Vlad Tracul
El amor critiano se defiende solo y SIEMPRE GANA.

... siempre que tiene tu propio definición de "ganar"...

_Tu_ definicion o _mi_ definicion no es _la_ definicion. Ese es el punto
que siempre se le escapa a algunos.

PS: Dios creo dos parejas. Una heterosexual y otra homosexual, ambas igual
de logicas y democraticas. La primera era Adan y Eva. La segunda... ahora
no recuerdo su nombre. Eso *es* ganar.

sproz

2010-07-14 14:22:48 UTC

Post by Vlad Tracul
El amor critiano se defiende solo y SIEMPRE GANA.

... siempre que tiene tu propio definición de "ganar"...

_Tu_ definicion o _mi_ definicion no es _la_ definicion. Ese es el punto
que siempre se le escapa a algunos.

En la pregunta del matrimonio homosexual _la_ definicion es la
definicion del sociedad en que quieren casarse.

Post by Vlad Tracul
PS: Dios creo dos parejas. Una heterosexual y otra homosexual, ambas igual
de logicas y democraticas. La primera era Adan y Eva. La segunda... ahora
no recuerdo su nombre. Eso *es* ganar.

Me parece que eso es _tu_ definición de "ganar".

Bastante. No puedo discutir en espanol.

Mark

sproz

2010-07-14 13:00:55 UTC

Post by DanS.
Glenn Knickerbocker added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/13/2010 in writing

Post by Glenn Knickerbocker
So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.

The women in your imaginary colony didn't imaginarily live beyond
menopause? How convenient.
¬R

El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer menopausica
puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la caridad, etc.
PS: DanS, no te preocupes por el cinismo pueril de este bunch of losers. El
amor critiano se defiende solo y SIEMPRE GANA.

<<Cuando alguien sustituye argumentos con insultos, pierde su derecho
a participar en una tertulia civilizada.>>
OPERA OMNIA, Francesc Mercader, 2010.

Mark

DanS.

2010-07-14 14:56:38 UTC

Vlad Tracul added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/14/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Glenn Knickerbocker added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/13/2010 in writing

Post by Glenn Knickerbocker
So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.

The women in your imaginary colony didn't imaginarily live beyond
menopause? How convenient.
Â¬R

El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer menopausica
puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la caridad, etc.
PS: DanS, no te preocupes por el cinismo pueril de este bunch of losers. El
amor critiano se defiende solo y SIEMPRE GANA.

Mientras creería eso posición con los que conozco bien, aun hay los que
nunca van a aceptar argumentos basados en la Biblía. Yo creo que el
matrimonio no es un derecho para todos. Es un obligación social, y la
izquierda liberal proponía que es un derecho. Me parece como
antisimpatico, pero algunas cosas en esa vida son simplimente hechos
duros. Creo que eso es uno.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-15 00:09:06 UTC

Post by DanS.
Mientras creería eso posición con los que conozco bien, aun hay los
que nunca van a aceptar argumentos basados en la Biblía. Yo creo que
el matrimonio no es un derecho para todos. Es un obligación social, y
la izquierda liberal proponía que es un derecho.

Aqui la izquierda liberal consiguio que fuese un "derecho". Y ahora estan
intentando cambiar el clima del planeta. Si alguien pregunta por que
quieren cambiarlo, le llaman "negacionista". Es imposible razonar con esos
fanaticos. Recemos.

DanS.

2010-07-15 00:52:14 UTC

Vlad Tracul added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/14/2010 in writing

¡Qué lastima! Me compadezco de tí.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-15 11:25:18 UTC

Post by DanS.
Vlad Tracul added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/14/2010 in writing

Mientras creerÃa eso posiciÃ³n con los que conozco bien, aun hay
los que nunca van a aceptar argumentos basados en la BiblÃa. Yo
creo que el matrimonio no es un derecho para todos. Es un
obligaciÃ³n social, y la izquierda liberal proponÃa que es un
derecho.

Aqui la izquierda liberal consiguio que fuese un "derecho". Y ahora
estan intentando cambiar el clima del planeta. Si alguien pregunta
por que quieren cambiarlo, le llaman "negacionista". Es imposible
razonar con esos fanaticos. Recemos.

Â¡QuÃ© lastima! Me compadezco de tÃ.

Gracias, DanS. Y si. Todo lo que aqui ocurre da pena y rabia. Yo creo que
los pobres alemanes y holandeses pagaron los platos rotos en el soccer.

Evan Kirshenbaum

2010-07-14 15:28:26 UTC

Post by DanS.
Glenn Knickerbocker added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/13/2010 in writing

Post by Glenn Knickerbocker
So there's no reason for any marriage to be recognized beyond menopause?

None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original
question.

The women in your imaginary colony didn't imaginarily live beyond
menopause? How convenient.
¬R

El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer
menopausica puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la
caridad, etc.

Yeah[1], but Paul was expecting the world to last a few years more,
tops, and was largely recommending that people not change their
situation. "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." (1
Cor. 7:27) He was obviously expecting those very people he was
addressing to be around when the "appointed time" came. Apparently
the realization that Christians (who had converted on the promise of
eternal life) could actually die caused something of a crisis of faith
in early churches, and Paul has to reassure them (1 Thes. 4:13-18)
that dead Christians will be saved, too. But he still numbers himself
and his audience (v. 17) with those he expects to be around when the
end comes, so apparently he looked on dead Christians as the exception
rather than the rule.

[1] Or, rather, "no". He talks about the unmarried and widows, but I
don't recall him mentioning those who were unable to have
children. For him marriage was a way for those who couldn't
exercise self-control to remove the temptation to sin by having
sex while unmarried, not a way to have children.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Glenn Knickerbocker

2010-07-14 22:35:09 UTC

Post by Vlad Tracul
El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer
menopausica puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la
caridad, etc.

Yeah[1], but Paul was expecting the world to last a few years more,
tops, and was largely recommending that people not change their
situation. "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage."

Besides which, I didn't say a word about women marrying after menopause.
By Dan's argument, marriages would naturally end as
soon as the wife reached menopause, leaving older women with no husbands
to provide for them, and older men free to marry younger
and younger women. I don't think Paul ever advocated that.

¬R

tony cooper

2010-07-15 00:11:39 UTC

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:35:09 -0400, Glenn Knickerbocker

Post by Vlad Tracul
El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer
menopausica puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la
caridad, etc.

Yeah[1], but Paul was expecting the world to last a few years more,
tops, and was largely recommending that people not change their
situation. "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage."

While I do mean this facetiously, the idea of being free to marry
younger women has some appeal, but dating - which I would consider a
requirement before committing to marriage - younger women does not.

I do like the fact that my wife is conversant in almost anything I
choose to discuss. References don't go over her head. She
understands dated allusions.

I say "almost" because she *is* deficient in the area of understanding
some sexual slang terms and practices. I'll laugh at something in a
movie and she'll poke me and demand that I explain what was funny.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-15 00:15:44 UTC

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Yeah[1], but Paul was expecting the world to last a few years more,
tops, and was largely recommending that people not change their
situation. "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." (1
Cor. 7:27) He was obviously expecting those very people he was
addressing to be around when the "appointed time" came. Apparently
the realization that Christians (who had converted on the promise of
eternal life) could actually die caused something of a crisis of faith
in early churches, and Paul has to reassure them (1 Thes. 4:13-18)
that dead Christians will be saved, too. But he still numbers himself
and his audience (v. 17) with those he expects to be around when the
end comes, so apparently he looked on dead Christians as the exception
rather than the rule.
[1] Or, rather, "no". He talks about the unmarried and widows, but I
don't recall him mentioning those who were unable to have
children. For him marriage was a way for those who couldn't
exercise self-control to remove the temptation to sin by having
sex while unmarried, not a way to have children.

La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en lugar de
al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy dentro del marco
logico del amor romantico.

Evan Kirshenbaum

2010-07-15 17:29:45 UTC

La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

Oh, sure. Paul was a homophobe, no two ways about it. But that's
beside the point if the question is whether he considered the
procreative aspects of marriage of any value at all in a world that
was going to end any day now. The answer seems to be pretty clearly
"no".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |As the judge remarked the day that
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | he acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |To be smut
|It must be ut-
***@hpl.hp.com |Terly without redeeming social
(650)857-7572 | importance.
| Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DanS.

2010-07-15 17:34:06 UTC

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ... kind of the way I feel about the
current social situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

2010-07-15 18:24:06 UTC

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ... kind of the way I feel about the
current social situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. [KJV, Gen.9,1.]

To me "replenish the earth" means replace the people who drowned in the
Flood. It does not mean go on mulitplying indefinitely.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

DanS.

2010-07-15 21:17:57 UTC

Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ... kind of the way I feel about the
current social situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. [KJV, Gen.9,1.]
To me "replenish the earth" means replace the people who drowned in the
Flood. It does not mean go on mulitplying indefinitely.

I'm not Jewish, so, I have no authoritative opinion, but it's said to
Adam and Eve too, I believe.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Evan Kirshenbaum

2010-07-16 15:55:03 UTC

Post by DanS.
Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0400, DanS.

Be fruitful and multiply was already a given ... it went without
saying ... kind of the way I feel about the current social
situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. [KJV, Gen.9,1.]
To me "replenish the earth" means replace the people who drowned in
the Flood. It does not mean go on mulitplying indefinitely.

I'm not Jewish, so, I have no authoritative opinion,

I am, but I'm astonished by that statement. I thought Christians were
supposed to have those books as part of their canon as well.

Post by DanS.
but it's said to Adam and Eve too, I believe.

No, it's said to the first men and women in the Genesis 1 (P) creation
story. (Gen. 9:1 is also P. Adam and Even, in Gen. 2, are J.) It's
also said to the "swarms of living creatures" in the seas. The
current Jewish Publication Society translation is "Be fertile and
increase".

In both the creation case and the post-flood case, the notion is that
the world is empty and needs to be filled. And, of course, it's a
just-so explanation for why the world *was* full of life and why there
were people everywhere.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that
|none of it has tried to contact us.
***@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DanS.

2010-07-16 16:02:14 UTC

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0400, DanS.

Be fruitful and multiply was already a given ... it went without
saying ... kind of the way I feel about the current social
situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. [KJV, Gen.9,1.]
To me "replenish the earth" means replace the people who drowned in
the Flood. It does not mean go on mulitplying indefinitely.

I'm not Jewish, so, I have no authoritative opinion,

I am, but I'm astonished by that statement. I thought Christians were
supposed to have those books as part of their canon as well.

Yes, but Jesus brought the new covenent. And, no Jew would be arguing
your side of the debate. You're supposed to marry a woman within your
race. I know enough about it to know when I'm debating a fraud.

Post by DanS.
but it's said to Adam and Eve too, I believe.

You can't really believe what you're writing. This doesn't even merit
a response. But, I humor you. You're trying to contextualize
everything as if times have changed so much that we can disreguard Holy
Scripture. No, it just doesn't work that way.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

the Omrud

2010-07-16 16:25:38 UTC

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human wisdom
on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0400, DanS.

Be fruitful and multiply was already a given ... it went without
saying ... kind of the way I feel about the current social
situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. [KJV, Gen.9,1.]
To me "replenish the earth" means replace the people who drowned in
the Flood. It does not mean go on mulitplying indefinitely.

I'm not Jewish, so, I have no authoritative opinion,

I am, but I'm astonished by that statement. I thought Christians were
supposed to have those books as part of their canon as well.

You've remotely divined that Evan's not Jewish? Fiendish.

--
David

LFS

2010-07-16 16:40:17 UTC

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human wisdom
on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0400, DanS.

Be fruitful and multiply was already a given ... it went without
saying ... kind of the way I feel about the current social
situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. [KJV, Gen.9,1.]
To me "replenish the earth" means replace the people who drowned in
the Flood. It does not mean go on mulitplying indefinitely.

I'm not Jewish, so, I have no authoritative opinion,

I am, but I'm astonished by that statement. I thought Christians were
supposed to have those books as part of their canon as well.

You've remotely divined that Evan's not Jewish? Fiendish.

I hate to be picky but could someone kindly explain to me what any of
this thread has to do with English usage?

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

the Omrud

2010-07-16 16:46:24 UTC

Post by LFS

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human wisdom
on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:34:06 -0400, DanS.

Be fruitful and multiply was already a given ... it went without
saying ... kind of the way I feel about the current social
situation ... its a shame it even has to be said at all.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth. [KJV, Gen.9,1.]
To me "replenish the earth" means replace the people who drowned in
the Flood. It does not mean go on mulitplying indefinitely.

I'm not Jewish, so, I have no authoritative opinion,

I am, but I'm astonished by that statement. I thought Christians were
supposed to have those books as part of their canon as well.

You've remotely divined that Evan's not Jewish? Fiendish.

I hate to be picky but could someone kindly explain to me what any of
this thread has to do with English usage?

Nothing whatsoever, but he's so polite in his beliefs that it seems rude
not to occasionally toss him a response. I think he wandered in by
accident.

--
David

DanS.

2010-07-16 17:07:56 UTC

LFS added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/16/2010 in writing

I hate to be picky but could someone kindly explain to me what any of this
thread has to do with English usage?

It was supposed to go to alt.language.spanish instead of AUE in
response to the Spainish win at the world cup. I clicked the wrong
checkbox and was then viciously attacked for the information my sig
file.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

tony cooper

2010-07-16 20:13:24 UTC

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:07:56 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
LFS added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/16/2010 in writing

I hate to be picky but could someone kindly explain to me what any of this
thread has to do with English usage?

I think I was in lead of that charge, but I questioned your math. And
not viciously. I can do vicious, but you haven't seen it.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

DanS.

2010-07-16 20:35:22 UTC

tony cooper added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/16/2010 in writing

Post by tony cooper
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:07:56 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
LFS added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/16/2010 in writing

I hate to be picky but could someone kindly explain to me what any of this
thread has to do with English usage?

I think I was in lead of that charge, but I questioned your math. And
not viciously. I can do vicious, but you haven't seen it.

I think the more vicious attacks came later ... you simply softened the
target, the wolves followed behind. :)
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Evan Kirshenbaum

2010-07-16 15:42:22 UTC

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

So was being circumcised if you were going to follow this god, but
Paul also explicitly said not to bother doing that. He made a lot of
his pronouncements based on the fact that he and his followers (like
Jesus) really believed that the world was going to end soon and that
people then alive would be there to see it. The game had changed for
them.

Post by DanS.
kind of the way I feel about the current social situation ... its a
shame it even has to be said at all.

I can agree with that. The fact that some people see anything wrong
with two men or two women who love each other getting married boggles
my mind, too.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it.
Palo Alto, CA 94304

***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DanS.

2010-07-16 15:56:46 UTC

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

You cannot approach Christianity from that perspective and maintain it
as your relgion. Just admit you don't believe it and we can get on
with this.

Post by DanS.
kind of the way I feel about the current social situation ... its a
shame it even has to be said at all.

I can agree with that. The fact that some people see anything wrong
with two men or two women who love each other getting married boggles
my mind, too.

It affects everyone. It is not a decision unique to the couple. Now,
we're just repeating ourselves here.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

Evan Kirshenbaum

2010-07-16 19:34:17 UTC

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura
en lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada
hoy dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

So was being circumcised if you were going to follow this god, but
Paul also explicitly said not to bother doing that. He made a lot
of his pronouncements based on the fact that he and his followers
(like Jesus) really believed that the world was going to end soon
and that people then alive would be there to see it. The game had
changed for them.

You cannot approach Christianity from that perspective and maintain
it as your relgion. Just admit you don't believe it and we can get
on with this.

Of course I don't believe it. I've never claimed to be a Christian.
It's nice to hear one who is say that you can't approach Christianity
from Paul's perspective, but I have to wonder why Christians continue
to lend so much weight to his words.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes
|closest to applying...
***@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

DanS.

2010-07-16 19:38:30 UTC

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura
en lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada
hoy dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

So was being circumcised if you were going to follow this god, but
Paul also explicitly said not to bother doing that. He made a lot
of his pronouncements based on the fact that he and his followers
(like Jesus) really believed that the world was going to end soon
and that people then alive would be there to see it. The game had
changed for them.

You cannot approach Christianity from that perspective and maintain
it as your relgion. Just admit you don't believe it and we can get
on with this.

You have no authority then. The conversation is moot and pointless.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

2010-07-16 19:58:06 UTC

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:38:30 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura
en lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada
hoy dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

So was being circumcised if you were going to follow this god, but
Paul also explicitly said not to bother doing that. He made a lot
of his pronouncements based on the fact that he and his followers
(like Jesus) really believed that the world was going to end soon
and that people then alive would be there to see it. The game had
changed for them.

You cannot approach Christianity from that perspective and maintain
it as your relgion. Just admit you don't believe it and we can get
on with this.

You have no authority then. The conversation is moot and pointless.

Wow!

So knowledge and reasoning ability are worthless?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

DanS.

2010-07-16 20:42:12 UTC

Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:38:30 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura
en lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada
hoy dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

So was being circumcised if you were going to follow this god, but
Paul also explicitly said not to bother doing that. He made a lot
of his pronouncements based on the fact that he and his followers
(like Jesus) really believed that the world was going to end soon
and that people then alive would be there to see it. The game had
changed for them.

You cannot approach Christianity from that perspective and maintain
it as your relgion. Just admit you don't believe it and we can get
on with this.

You have no authority then. The conversation is moot and pointless.

Wow!
So knowledge and reasoning ability are worthless?

Paul wrote in the Greek way: logically. But, if you don't understand
that disbelief contraindicates authority to comment on faith, then
you're missing a credit or two in your "logic" program.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

CDB

2010-07-16 21:24:27 UTC

Post by DanS.
Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all
human wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:38:30 -0400, DanS.

[because sheep are On Topic, that's why]

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)

You[, not being a Christian,] have no authority then. The
conversation is moot and
pointless.

Wow!
So knowledge and reasoning ability are worthless?

Paul wrote in the Greek way: logically. But, if you don't
understand that disbelief contraindicates authority to comment on
faith, then you're missing a credit or two in your "logic" program.

The Greeks could do logic, and sometimes did. If you think logic
characterises their writing, though, you're missing a credit or two in
your "Greek" program.

Skitt

2010-07-16 21:30:41 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura
en lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada
hoy dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

So was being circumcised if you were going to follow this god, but
Paul also explicitly said not to bother doing that. He made a lot
of his pronouncements based on the fact that he and his followers
(like Jesus) really believed that the world was going to end soon
and that people then alive would be there to see it. The game had
changed for them.

You cannot approach Christianity from that perspective and maintain
it as your relgion. Just admit you don't believe it and we can get
on with this.

You have no authority then. The conversation is moot and pointless.

Wow!
So knowledge and reasoning ability are worthless?

Pretty much, when it comes to blind faith in any religion.

--
Skitt (follower of the FOTIPU)
"The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

DanS.

2010-07-16 19:39:30 UTC

Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura
en lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada
hoy dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

So was being circumcised if you were going to follow this god, but
Paul also explicitly said not to bother doing that. He made a lot
of his pronouncements based on the fact that he and his followers
(like Jesus) really believed that the world was going to end soon
and that people then alive would be there to see it. The game had
changed for them.

You cannot approach Christianity from that perspective and maintain
it as your relgion. Just admit you don't believe it and we can get
on with this.

Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

2010-07-16 20:02:50 UTC

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:39:30 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?

Much of the Bible, the Old Testament, is God's letter to the Jews. What
are Christians doing reading someone else's mail?

Jesus of Nazareth popped up and preached to non-Christians.

Some of his disciples, particularly Peter, then took Jesus's teaching to
other non-Christians.

As a Christian, now an ex-Christian, I understand that the Bible is
God's letter to the whole of humanity.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

tony cooper

2010-07-16 20:19:01 UTC

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:02:50 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:39:30 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?

Much of the Bible, the Old Testament, is God's letter to the Jews. What
are Christians doing reading someone else's mail?

For most of my life I've been marking the mail "Return to Sender".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

DanS.

2010-07-16 20:37:07 UTC

Peter Duncanson (BrE) added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/16/2010 in writing

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:39:30 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?

Much of the Bible, the Old Testament, is God's letter to the Jews. What
are Christians doing reading someone else's mail?
Jesus of Nazareth popped up and preached to non-Christians.
Some of his disciples, particularly Peter, then took Jesus's teaching to
other non-Christians.
As a Christian, now an ex-Christian, I understand that the Bible is
God's letter to the whole of humanity.

You neither, then, as an ex-Christian have no authority. Sorry, but at
the core *is* belief - that's kinda why they call it a "faith."
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

R H Draney

2010-07-16 20:03:58 UTC

Post by DanS.
Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?

The same thing you're doing pestering alt.usage.english with your arguments....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

DanS.

2010-07-16 20:43:33 UTC

R H Draney added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?

The same thing you're doing pestering alt.usage.english with your arguments....r

I've been here for years. You're just confused about your place in the
debate.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
You have a hypothetical group of 20 original colonists. Suppose a gay
couple and a heterosexual couple emerge. One couple will make a family
and the other will not. Trick question ... which couple are the other
18 obligated to formally recognize? No, America, you know what
marriage is. You've just been confused by the tax breaks and orphans,
neither of which is ultimately avoidable. What is avoidable is the
confusion of what was once a societal obligation with what has somehow,
and quite emotionally so in all cases, been misinterpreted as a right.
(c) (t)

R H Draney

2010-07-16 21:08:38 UTC

Post by DanS.
R H Draney added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?

The same thing you're doing pestering alt.usage.english with your arguments....r

I've been here for years. You're just confused about your place in the
debate.

What we need right about now is a Choctaw....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

2010-07-16 21:15:00 UTC

Post by DanS.
R H Draney added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/16/2010 in writing

Post by DanS.
Let's put it this way, the Bible is God's letter to Christians. What
are you doing reading someone else's mail?

The same thing you're doing pestering alt.usage.english with your arguments....r

I've been here for years. You're just confused about your place in the
debate.

What we need right about now is a Choctaw....r

That's the naked truth.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-16 17:50:09 UTC

Post by DanS.
kind of the way I feel about the current social situation ... its a
shame it even has to be said at all.

I can agree with that. The fact that some people see anything wrong
with two men or two women who love each other getting married boggles
my mind, too.

Es maravilloso. Creo que todos estamos de acuerdo. Yo no entiendo porque
alguna gente vea algo malo en que un hombre y cuatro mujeres que se aman,
puedan casarse. Boogles my mind, too.

Pero votan las leyes de su pais e imponen su interes a los demas. Y nadie
les exige ademas (ni ellos se preocupan por ofrecer) una justificacion
transcendente o consistencia logica.

Evan Kirshenbaum

2010-07-16 19:39:00 UTC

Post by DanS.
kind of the way I feel about the current social situation ... its a
shame it even has to be said at all.

I can agree with that. The fact that some people see anything wrong
with two men or two women who love each other getting married boggles
my mind, too.

Es maravilloso. Creo que todos estamos de acuerdo. Yo no entiendo
porque alguna gente vea algo malo en que un hombre y cuatro mujeres
que se aman, puedan casarse.

Ni yo tampoco. And there's plenty of biblical justification for it,
too.

The only reason that that's a bit harder to change, as far as I can
see, is that it's harder to come up with rules about how such a
marriage would get dissolved, especially if only part of the group
wanted to leave. That's not to say that it couldn't be done, just
that it's not as straightforward as the simple changes to the laws
required to extend two-person marriage rights to couples that had
previously been forbidden to marry.

Post by Vlad Tracul
Boogles my mind, too.
Pero votan las leyes de su pais e imponen su interes a los demas. Y
nadie les exige ademas (ni ellos se preocupan por ofrecer) una
justificacion transcendente o consistencia logica.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way?
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
| a hero, you've got to do
***@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in
(650)857-7572 | a while.

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-16 21:54:12 UTC

Post by Vlad Tracul
Es maravilloso. Creo que todos estamos de acuerdo. Yo no entiendo
porque alguna gente vea algo malo en que un hombre y cuatro mujeres
que se aman, puedan casarse.

Ni yo tampoco. And there's plenty of biblical justification for it,
too.
The only reason that that's a bit harder to change, as far as I can
see, is that it's harder to come up with rules about how such a
marriage would get dissolved, especially if only part of the group
wanted to leave. That's not to say that it couldn't be done, just
that it's not as straightforward as the simple changes to the laws
required to extend two-person marriage rights to couples that had
previously been forbidden to marry.

No creo que esa sea la razon, tampoco la tuya. Pero, aunque para mi es muy
grato discutir contigo (Javi decia que eras la persona mas inteligente con
la que ha conversado), creo que no conviene molestar mas a los usuarios de
alt.usage.english. Asi que me despido con un cordial saludo.

franzi

2010-07-16 21:53:51 UTC

Post by DanS.
Evan Kirshenbaum added the following to the totality of all human
wisdom on 7/15/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

You're ignoring the culture. Be fruitful and multiply was already a
given ... it went without saying ...

Post by DanS.
kind of the way I feel about the current social situation ... its a
shame it even has to be said at all.

I can agree with that. The fact that some people see anything wrong
with two men or two women who love each other getting married boggles
my mind, too.

It starts as a usage issue about the word 'marriage', tout simple.
That's what really bugs some people.

Then when you disturb it further, it becomes a sociological
investigation into the utility of a formal lawfully recognised permanent
interpersonal relationship contract which is nevertheless and
contradictorially severable by law on the request of one party.

Next, why does it have to be sexual at all? Can't people love one
another without bringing genitalia into it?

Actually, it's not clear why 'love', sexual or otherwise, has to enter
into the matter and muddy the waters. Many cultures (where arranged
marriages are the norm) accept that marriage can lead the way, and that
love may, with luck, follow.

--
franzi

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-16 02:52:14 UTC

exception

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
rather than the rule.
[1] Or, rather, "no". He talks about the unmarried and widows, but I
don't recall him mentioning those who were unable to have
children. For him marriage was a way for those who couldn't
exercise self-control to remove the temptation to sin by having
sex while unmarried, not a way to have children.

La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

En Tim 1 2.15 dice que "La mujer se salvara ... por su condicion de
madre" (obviamente dentro del matrimonio), no por el matrimonio. Supongo
que permitir la salvacion de las mujeres fertiles tendra algun valor.

Evan Kirshenbaum

2010-07-16 16:01:48 UTC

faith

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
in early churches, and Paul has to reassure them (1 Thes. 4:13-18)
that dead Christians will be saved, too. But he still numbers

himself

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
and his audience (v. 17) with those he expects to be around when the
end comes, so apparently he looked on dead Christians as the

exception

La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

This much debated verse has also been translated (1) "she will be
saved through the birth of the Child" [referring to Jesus Christ],
or (b) "she will be brought safely through childbirth."

_The New Oxford Annotated Bible_

I'm not sure it's the best verse to quote to demonstrate Paul's views
on having children. In English, the Revised Standard Version (to
which that note was attached) gives it as

Yet woman will be saved through bearing children [or "by the birth
of the child"] if she continues [or "they continue"] in faith and
love and holiness, with modesty.

Perhaps somebody more familiar with New Testament Greek could comment
here.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are two types of people -
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not.
| Leigh Blue Caldwell
***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-16 17:11:25 UTC

faith

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
in early churches, and Paul has to reassure them (1 Thes. 4:13-18)
that dead Christians will be saved, too. But he still numbers

himself

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
and his audience (v. 17) with those he expects to be around when
the end comes, so apparently he looked on dead Christians as the

exception

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
rather than the rule.
[1] Or, rather, "no". He talks about the unmarried and widows, but I
don't recall him mentioning those who were unable to have
children. For him marriage was a way for those who couldn't
exercise self-control to remove the temptation to sin by
having sex while unmarried, not a way to have children.

La cuestion, Evan, es "haber adorado y dado culto a la criatura en
lugar de al Creador" (Rom 1.25). No esa casuistica, planteada hoy
dentro del marco logico del amor romantico.

En Tim 1 2.15 dice que "La mujer se salvara ... por su condicion de
madre" (obviamente dentro del matrimonio), no por el matrimonio.
Supongo que permitir la salvacion de las mujeres fertiles tendra
algun valor.

A mi me gusta.

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
In English, the Revised Standard Version (to
which that note was attached) gives it as
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children [or "by the birth
of the child"] if she continues [or "they continue"] in faith and
love and holiness, with modesty.
Perhaps somebody more familiar with New Testament Greek could comment
here.

Cito de La Biblia en español editada por "La Casa de La Biblia", aprobada
por la Conferencia Episcopal Española: "Se salvara, sin embargo, por su
condicion de madre". L

En The Source New Testament, de A. Nyland, es traducido traduce: "...and
she will be saved by means of the Birth of the Child if they continue to
..." Añade, ademas, la siguiente nota: "... the human race was saved
through the birth of Jesus, pointing back to Genesis 3:15...". Cita
varios autores que siguen esta traduccion.

Tambien ofrece esta nota a 1 Cor 7:39: "This freed childless widows from
the obligation of Levirate marriage -- that is, the obligation for a
childless widow to marry her deceased husband's brother and produce
children. Paul was giving the widow to the same rights to remarry
whomever she wished (as long as he was a follower of the Lord). The
phrase 'you may marry any Jewish man you wish' was standard in Jewish
divorce certificates".

Bueno, francamente no se que pensar. Me parece que, simplemente, la idea
de casarse para otra cosa que no fuera tener hijos, no la concebia esa
gente, se acabase el mundo o no. Pero me alegro de ser catolico y dejar
este tipo de preocupaciones a Ratzinger.

Peter Moylan

2010-07-15 02:26:35 UTC

Post by Vlad Tracul
El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer
menopausica puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la
caridad, etc.

Yeah[1], but Paul was expecting the world to last a few years more,
tops, and was largely recommending that people not change their
situation. "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." (1
Cor. 7:27) He was obviously expecting those very people he was
addressing to be around when the "appointed time" came. Apparently
the realization that Christians (who had converted on the promise of
eternal life) could actually die caused something of a crisis of faith
in early churches, and Paul has to reassure them (1 Thes. 4:13-18)
that dead Christians will be saved, too. But he still numbers himself
and his audience (v. 17) with those he expects to be around when the
end comes, so apparently he looked on dead Christians as the exception
rather than the rule.
[1] Or, rather, "no". He talks about the unmarried and widows, but I
don't recall him mentioning those who were unable to have
children. For him marriage was a way for those who couldn't
exercise self-control to remove the temptation to sin by having
sex while unmarried, not a way to have children.

Interesting. I knew about Paul's reasoning before this, but seeing it in
the context of the current thread provides a new insight. It wasn't
until now that it suddenly became obvious that Paul would have argued in
favour of gay marriage.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

DanS.

2010-07-15 02:33:56 UTC

Peter Moylan added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/14/2010 in writing

Post by Vlad Tracul
El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer
menopausica puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la
caridad, etc.

Yeah[1], but Paul was expecting the world to last a few years more,
tops, and was largely recommending that people not change their
situation. "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." (1
Cor. 7:27) He was obviously expecting those very people he was
addressing to be around when the "appointed time" came. Apparently
the realization that Christians (who had converted on the promise of
eternal life) could actually die caused something of a crisis of faith
in early churches, and Paul has to reassure them (1 Thes. 4:13-18)
that dead Christians will be saved, too. But he still numbers himself
and his audience (v. 17) with those he expects to be around when the
end comes, so apparently he looked on dead Christians as the exception
rather than the rule.
[1] Or, rather, "no". He talks about the unmarried and widows, but I
don't recall him mentioning those who were unable to have
children. For him marriage was a way for those who couldn't
exercise self-control to remove the temptation to sin by having
sex while unmarried, not a way to have children.

If he would have argued so, he would have said, "I'm arguing in favor
of gay marriage" or some such wording. You only thought you knew about
Paul's teaching. Feel free to re-read not at your leisure.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

Vlad Tracul

2010-07-15 11:23:17 UTC

Post by Vlad Tracul
El matrimonio no es para todos. Como dijo San Pablo, una mujer
menopausica puede (y debe) dedicar su tiempo a la oracion, a la
caridad, etc.

Yeah[1], but Paul was expecting the world to last a few years more,
tops, and was largely recommending that people not change their
situation. "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." (1
Cor. 7:27) He was obviously expecting those very people he was
addressing to be around when the "appointed time" came. Apparently
the realization that Christians (who had converted on the promise of
eternal life) could actually die caused something of a crisis of faith
in early churches, and Paul has to reassure them (1 Thes. 4:13-18)
that dead Christians will be saved, too. But he still numbers himself
and his audience (v. 17) with those he expects to be around when the
end comes, so apparently he looked on dead Christians as the exception
rather than the rule.
[1] Or, rather, "no". He talks about the unmarried and widows, but I
don't recall him mentioning those who were unable to have
children. For him marriage was a way for those who couldn't
exercise self-control to remove the temptation to sin by having
sex while unmarried, not a way to have children.

If any further explanation needed, you can ask to the manly guys of La
Santa Inquisicion. They will be happy to provide you a totally new
insight on the Paul's point of view.

tony cooper

2010-07-14 01:03:42 UTC

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:03:35 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.
You're a troll and I'm going to plonk file you now.

You gotta laugh at this. A guy comes in with a sig dragging behind
like bait in the water and then "plonks" someone for being a troll.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

DanS.

2010-07-14 01:14:12 UTC

tony cooper added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/13/2010 in writing

Post by tony cooper
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:03:35 -0400, DanS.

Post by DanS.
None of these were in the imaginary colony in the original question.
You're a troll and I'm going to plonk file you now.

You gotta laugh at this. A guy comes in with a sig dragging behind
like bait in the water and then "plonks" someone for being a troll.

Did you read his abusive post? That's why I plonked him. If he could
have kept to the subject without the personal attack, he'd have been
fine.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

Glenn Knickerbocker

2010-07-14 02:33:56 UTC

Post by DanS.
Did you read his abusive post?

What abusive post? You're talking about a sig. That wasn't for
discussion.

¬R Blather, Rinse, Repeat.
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/telecom.html

tony cooper

2010-07-12 20:27:26 UTC

Post by CDB
The arithmetic is one thing I'm willing to give Rev Dan a by on. The
other 18 are the ones who are not the same-sex couple; their number
includes the male-female couple. There is a female couple across the
street from me. They are married, I believe, and are raising a couple
of adopted children, as successfully as most couples do.

My basis for coming up with 16 is the sentence "which
couple are the other 18 obligated to formally recognize". That sets
two groups: the two couples and the "others".

I'm disregarding the rest of the nonsense.

obAue: Doesn't one give a "bye", not a "by" in this context?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

CDB

2010-07-12 20:34:24 UTC

Post by tony cooper

Post by CDB
The arithmetic is one thing I'm willing to give Rev Dan a by on.
The other 18 are the ones who are not the same-sex couple; their
number includes the male-female couple. There is a female couple
across the street from me. They are married, I believe, and are
raising a couple of adopted children, as successfully as most
couples do.

Me too. Talking in my sleep, I am.

Post by tony cooper
obAue: Doesn't one give a "bye", not a "by" in this context?

Right you are, although the AHD allows the alternative spelling.
Would a snide implication of sexual ambiguity be preferable to a curt
farewell? EMWTK.

franzi

2010-07-12 21:59:46 UTC

Post by tony cooper

My basis for coming up with 16 is the sentence "which
couple are the other 18 obligated to formally recognize". That sets
two groups: the two couples and the "others".

"Which couple" means "which one couple", doesn't it? "Which one couple
(out of 20 people) are the other [people] obligated to formally
recognize?" When one couple is picked out, the other people, the people
not in that couple, number 18. There is a special couple, and there are
18 others, whether they are grouped in couples too, in triples, or in
orgies.

Post by tony cooper
obAue: Doesn't one give a "bye", not a "by" in this context?

One does.

--
franzi

tony cooper

2010-07-13 01:56:29 UTC

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:59:46 +0100, franzi

Post by franzi

Post by tony cooper

My basis for coming up with 16 is the sentence "which
couple are the other 18 obligated to formally recognize". That sets
two groups: the two couples and the "others".

"Which couple" means "which one couple", doesn't it?

It would still, in my opinion, be which one couple in the group of the
two couples would the other 16 recognize.

?"Which one couple

Post by franzi
(out of 20 people) are the other [people] obligated to formally
recognize?" When one couple is picked out, the other people, the people
not in that couple, number 18. There is a special couple, and there are
18 others, whether they are grouped in couples too, in triples, or in
orgies.

Post by tony cooper
obAue: Doesn't one give a "bye", not a "by" in this context?

One does.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Richard Chambers

2010-07-14 23:51:49 UTC

"DanS." wrote>

Too much is omitted here, viz. what obliges the community to
recognize any social or sexual arrangement, and what recognition
entails. This ought to be straightforward in actual colonies which usually
seek to replicate one source society in another different place,
thus replicate the social or legal systems of the parent society.
The OP factually observes that most societies police members'
social and sexual behavior, but we know there are some societies
that do not, and policy in this regard usually alters in time. Whether
a trick or not, the question cannot be answered until the OP
provides the rules of the game in this respect.

In Britain before the new law of 1967, it was possible to be sentenced to
a term in prison for being an active homosexual. Oscar Wilde was a famous
victim of this interfering law. The new law, which I supported in 1967 and
still do support, permitted homosexual activity in private between
consenting adults. It seemed to me that such activity between consenting
adults in private does no harm to anybody else but the participants, and
that the pre-1967 law was an intrusion on individual privacy. Furthermore,
it used up a limited resource of prison cells that would be better
allocated to more serious criminals.

The activities between homosexuals in private remains, for me, a private
matter for those individuals. I do not wish to recognise it. I do not wish
any peripheral involvement in it, even to the extent of not wishing to
hear the boring details of the difficulties homosexuals still face in
society. Just let them get on with it, and no more. As far as I am
concerned, I do not wish to live in a society that "officially" recognises
homosexual couples. I just wish that they would do it in private, as the
1967 law specifies, and not rub my nose in their private activities.

I particularly abhor the propaganda we now have ad nauseam on television,
attempting to persuade us that homosexuality is a good and noble thing. It
isn't. It is acceptable in private, and that's all.

Richard Chambers Leeds UK.

R H Draney

2010-07-15 00:22:31 UTC

Post by Richard Chambers
I particularly abhor the propaganda we now have ad nauseam on television,
attempting to persuade us that homosexuality is a good and noble thing. It
isn't. It is acceptable in private, and that's all.

It is neither more nor less unacceptable in public than heterosexuality, modulo
frightening the horses....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

DanS.

2010-07-15 02:35:01 UTC

R H Draney added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/14/2010 in writing

It is neither more nor less unacceptable in public than heterosexuality,
modulo frightening the horses....r

No, it's disgusting. I suppose you'd have porn on PBS?
--
Yours,
Dan S.
Every age has its illusions. Ours has been this fervent belief in the
power of prosperity. Our pillars of faith are now crashing about us.
We are discovering that we cannot, as we had once supposed, create
prosperity at will ... Worse, we are learning that even great amounts
of prosperity won't solve all our social problems. Our Good Society is
disfigured by huge blemishes: entrenched poverty, persistent racial
tension, the breakdown of the family, and staggering budget deficits.
We are being rudely disabused of our vision of the future. The result
is a deep crisis of spirit that fuels Americans’ growing self-doubts,
cynicism with politics, and confusion about our global role.
-Newsweek, March, 1992

R H Draney

2010-07-15 07:34:14 UTC

Post by DanS.
R H Draney added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/14/2010 in writing

It is neither more nor less unacceptable in public than heterosexuality,
modulo frightening the horses....r

No, it's disgusting. I suppose you'd have porn on PBS?

If it were educational, why not?...r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

tony cooper

2010-07-15 01:10:13 UTC

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:51:49 +0100, "Richard Chambers"

Post by Richard Chambers
homosexual couples. I just wish that they would do it in private, as the
1967 law specifies, and not rub my nose in their private activities.

It's not my thing, either, Richard, and I - too - would be greatly
offended if asked by someone if they could rub my nose in their
private activities. Three-ways have never appealed to me no matter
who the participants are.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

DanS.

2010-07-15 02:38:12 UTC